Nettleship v Weston [1971] EWCA Civ 6

A learner driver injured her instructor in an accident. The court held that the learner must be judged by the same objective standard of care as a reasonably competent and qualified driver, not a lower standard reflecting her inexperience. This established a uniform standard.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Nettleship, agreed to give driving lessons to his friend’s wife, the defendant, Mrs Weston. Before doing so, he enquired about her insurance coverage and was assured that she was covered by a fully comprehensive policy. On the third lesson, while executing a simple manoeuvre, Mrs Weston panicked. She failed to straighten the steering wheel, kept her foot on the accelerator, and drove into a lamppost. The plaintiff fractured his knee in the collision and sued the defendant for damages in negligence. At trial, the judge found that the defendant had tried to do her best and was not in breach of any duty owed to her instructor. The judge also held that, if a duty had been breached, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and would have been 50% responsible.

Issues

The Court of Appeal considered several key legal issues:

1. What is the standard of care owed by a learner driver to others, including their instructor?
2. Should the standard be subjective, reflecting the driver’s inexperience, or objective and uniform for all drivers?
3. Is the defence of volenti non fit injuria (that the claimant voluntarily accepted the risk) applicable where an instructor agrees to teach a learner?
4. Was the instructor contributorily negligent for his own injuries?

Judgment

The Court of Appeal, by a majority, allowed the appeal, finding the defendant liable in negligence but reducing the damages for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

Lord Denning M.R. (Majority)

Lord Denning held that the law requires a single, objective standard of care for all drivers, irrespective of their individual level of experience. He argued that a variable standard would be uncertain and impractical. Policy considerations, particularly the existence of compulsory third-party insurance, influenced his reasoning, as it ensured that innocent victims could be compensated.

It is measured objectively by the care to be expected of an experienced, skilled and careful driver.

He rejected the defence of volenti non fit injuria. The plaintiff had checked the insurance position, which indicated he did not waive his right to compensation for injury.

He was not volens to the risk of injury. He was not a volunteer in the sense that he agreed to waive any claim for any injury that might befall him.

However, Lord Denning agreed with the trial judge’s finding of contributory negligence, holding the instructor and learner equally responsible for the accident. As the instructor was in a position to direct and potentially intervene, he shared in the responsibility for the failure to control the car. He assessed the plaintiff’s share of responsibility at 50%.

Salmon L.J. (Dissenting)

Salmon L.J. dissented on the primary issue of the standard of care. He argued that it was unjust and unrealistic to expect a learner driver to exhibit the same skill as an experienced one. In his view, the standard of care should be subjective and tailored to the driver’s known level of experience. A passenger who knows they are being driven by a learner implicitly accepts a lower standard of skill.

The duty which a driver owes to his passenger is to drive with that degree of skill and care which a driver of his class may reasonably be expected to exercise. The passenger knows the class to which his driver belongs.

While he agreed that volenti was not a defence, he would have dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the defendant had not, in his view, breached the duty of care that she owed to the plaintiff.

Megaw L.J. (Majority)

Megaw L.J. concurred with Lord Denning, providing further strong justification for a single, objective standard. He stressed the impracticality and uncertainty that a variable standard would introduce into the law of negligence. If the standard were lowered for a learner, it would be difficult to define and could logically extend to drivers who are, for example, unwell or temperamentally clumsy, leading to an unworkable legal framework.

The certainty of a general standard is preferable to the vagaries of a fluctuating standard.

He agreed with Lord Denning that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and that the responsibility should be shared equally (50%).

Implications

This landmark decision firmly established that the standard of care in negligence for activities requiring skill is objective. It is not adjusted for the inexperience or incompetence of the defendant. The ruling confirmed that all drivers, including learners, are judged against the standard of a reasonably competent and qualified driver. The case is also notable for the court’s explicit acknowledgment of the role of compulsory insurance in tort law, using it as a policy justification for imposing liability to ensure an injured party can be compensated. The finding of 50% contributory negligence also highlights the high degree of responsibility placed on an instructor to supervise and control the vehicle.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The defendant, Mrs Weston, was found to be negligent but the plaintiff, Mr Nettleship, was found to be 50% contributorily negligent. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for one-half of the agreed damages.

Source: Nettleship v Weston [1971] EWCA Civ 6